Church and mission related at a new level of quality (Historical and theological evaluation)
When in the summer of 1996, the United Evangelical Mission was transformed from a regional German missionary society into an international church communion in the service of mission, this was assessed in different ways.
There was confidence at finally having stepped onto the path of a tangible partnership, but there were also doubts. In the light of intercultural decision finding processes, practical questions arose concerning the future strain for management and administration. But there were also basic inquiries such as the question whether an obsolete mission institution was perhaps struggling to survive by changing into a multinational mission corporation with “western structures” and a head office in Wuppertal. If this were the case, ran the criticism, the former “mission churches” in the South would be incorporated in a new style as “business partners”, but still not in a less “colonial” way.1
Whatever the judgment on the UEM may be after these 13 years, the historical documents show quite clearly: it was not founded in the first place for reasons of organization but for the pursuit of a common vision and mutual respect. Here, after decades of theological ripening, a consensus on the basis and method of mission as well as intensive negotiations about a common strategy had sought and found their appropriate organizational structure.2
a. The consensus of mission theology states that mission does not work from North to South or vice versa, but engages the entire church of Jesus Christ all over the world in conveying the message of reconciliation to all mankind.
b. The strategy leading to the reform of the UEM was: a legal and financial frame set by European churches or associations can no longer dictate what is possible
1 Concerning the latter compare above all: H. Luther, Arbeitsstrukturen (Working Structures) ZMiss 4/1996, p.249 ff.
2 Cf. P. Sandner, Der Weg zur Internationalisierung der UEM. Erinnerungen (The path towards the internationalization of UEM. Memories.), Wuppertal: UEM 2007. The historical comparison of CEVAA, WMM, and UEM by K. Funkschmidt titled “Earthing the vision”, Frankfurt: Peter Lang 2000, very valuable due to its profound investigation, emphasizes this aspect in accordance with its title.
for a common understanding on the Gospel and its effects (donor-recipient structure). On the contrary, this frame must be shaped by listening to each other and giving mutual advice.
c. In terms of structure, this led to the transformation of a mission agency of German Protestant churches into an international communion of churches and institutions dedicated to mission.
Many people were impressed that the association had a structure characterized by a Christian spirit, grounded on a time-tested theological basis (constitution) and capable of reacting in a flexible way to questions of international ethics (human rights). These qualities prove that it was not mere pragmatism that made the members join, but that they felt the obligation to act in common because of their common destination (cf. Acts 4:20) and common history.3 This process4 has added an interesting chapter to the history of the relationship between church and mission. Since the beginning of Protestant
‘overseas mission’ by the missionaries from Halle and Denmark in South India some 300 years ago, Protestant churches and organized world mission sometimes criticized and sometimes ignored each other, and sometimes they had phases of mutual attraction. Already in 1938, at the World Missionary Conference at Tambaram / India, the delegates had on principle agreed upon a stronger allocation of world missionary responsibility to the churches (instead of private or other public communities as before). This programmatic change took some time to be implemented;5 the first step was a cooperation of regional church-related missionary societies in Europe, based on geographical considerations.
At Bangkok in 1973, the unilateral north-south directed missionary work was radically questioned, giving rise to the emergence of a growing number of direct church partnerships. It became obvious that the institution of ‘regional missionary societies’ could only be an interim solution. Therefore, it was only consistent for the churches and institutions united in the Vereinigte
3 This common history has aspects of shame and grief that have to be commemorated and emphasized over and over again in the present atmosphere of reconciliation (such as five years ago on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the war of extermination which the German colonial power waged against the Herero and other peoples in Namibia). The common history, however, also recalls early occurrences of reconciliation in theology and cooperation in partnership; cf. p.Sandner, op.cit., p.4, or in the history of Bethel Mission: E. Johanssen, Bilder aus einer entstehenden evangelischen Christenheit in Ostafrika (Images of an emerging Protestant Christianity in East Africa), Evangelisches Missionsmagazin 1927, H. 1, 18 – 22.
4 By now, we may speak of an established process and not only of a project, as it was called in Funkschmidt, op. cit., pp.300-346 because of its coincidence with the official foundation.
5 This is valid despite the integration of International Missionary Council as a union of missionary societies with the WCC in New Delhi in 1961; cf. O. Schumann, Die Seite der Schriftleitung (Editor’s page), ZMiss, 4/1996, p.202.
Evangelische Mission to entrust the mandate of missionary work to a network of responsibility within a communion of churches – after a process of consultation that lasted for 18 years (from 1978, Bethel consultation, until 1996, Bethel UEM General Assembly).
The partners in charge of the reform process fulfilled their tasks with very careful reflection6, taking their time to discuss experiences, new concepts and new structures, yet without coming to a standstill:
a) They allowed as many levels as possible within the partner institutions to take part in the consultations (synods, but also leading clergy were often involved7).
b) They sought advice and evaluation from competent advisors with expertise and experience in the field of cooperation (assessments by EMW 1993 and by WCC).
c) And they realized at an early stage that regional structures had to be allowed sufficient importance within the future communion.8
So who is the UEM today?
The UEM is a growing communion of churches and institutions united by a joint history of mission, dedicated to give mutual help in dealing with the present-day missionary challenges. In this communion, the associated churches and institutions share their understanding and responsibility for passing on the Gospel in word and deed. Such sharing of responsibility signifies for those who are in some way dominant, e.g. by material superiority, the willingness to forego the exercise of power, clearly demonstrating the new quality of ecumenical coexistence. The mandate to manage this communion has been transferred to a supra-church level, while safeguarded by the competence of the General Assembly, consisting mainly of church representatives, to determine its constitution and guidelines.
Careful documentary examination of the development leading to the new UEM reveals the urgent concern not to destroy the churches’ consciousness of their own responsibility for mission that had only just begun to grow, by forming an independent, international hyper-structure comparable to former
6 Reckoning from 1996, some three decades of searching for an adequate partnership structure preceded this process. However, from 1973 onwards, first suggestions were to be heard from responsible reformers (Menzel 1973; deVries 1975; G. Jasper jun. 1976) which led in the direction of the UEM process, which gained distinct contours from 1988 on; cf. Gerhard Jasper, Zum notwendigen Hören auf Lausanne – auch nach Nairobi, Evangelische Mission Jahrbuch 1976, ed. by Verband Evangelischer Missionskonferenzen, Hamburg 1976, pp.46 – 65; as well as Funkschmidt, op. cit., pp.30 ff. Likewise remarked by p.Sandner, op.cit., p 11 and others, and K. Funkschmidt, Structures and Theology, IRM XCI, 2002, p.397.
7 From my church alone Bishop Dr. Jung in Mühlheim, 1988; Bishop Prof. Dr. Zippert in Ramatea, 1993.
8 Thus already recorded by V. Jung in an observation as an asset in the development of the UEM in comparison to CEVAA. Jung, V., CEVAA: Um einen Tisch versammelt (CEVAA: Gathered around one table), Jahrbuch Mission 1996, p.218
associations or societies outside the churches.9 At the same time, given the tendency to regard mission as a special or cross-sectional function of ecclesial expression or simply a process of mutual self-help between churches, it had to be borne in mind that church and mission are never completely identical.10 Mission is not owned by the churches, even though, or rather precisely because, the church represents the indispensable historical fellowship of faith through the power of the mission of reconciliation of God in Christ and through the one Christian baptism.
It is, among other things, the basic Protestant understanding of the church which ensures that the new UEM communion pays attention to both those basic insights. The churches and institutions associated in UEM share this basic understanding as expressed in the constitution. According to this basic understanding, the church is in itself created by the reconciling word of God addressed to the sinner. Thus the church herself is already mission, as she struggles to give shape to the Word by listening and answering as well as in the mutual sharing of her members. That takes place even before and during the exercise of her responsibility for her activity in the world, namely for the mission she has. For whenever the members of the church of Jesus Christ as well as the different historical churches in the fellowship of the worldwide body of Christ share their gifts, they never share just themselves. As a Eucharistic communion they share the grace of reconciliation and peace with God, a grace reaching beyond this communion towards all mankind.11
In terms of theology, ‘mission’ can, therefore, be defined as a communication process in which the fellowship of reconciliation between God and humans, and between human and human, is created and renewed. As such it serves the Word by which the church is born and which she translates for all mankind. This dialogue between God and human is mediated by the Holy Scripture, conducted in brotherly and sisterly consultation, and serves to create and renew the church.12
9 Cf. an analogous undertaking, though in a completely different process with different results, in Basel Mission. Wolfgang Schmidt, Die Basler Mission im Gesamtprozess der Erneuerung ihres Auftrages, ihrer Verfassung, ihrer Struktur und ihrer Beziehungen, ZMIss 4/1996, pp.217 ff.
10 Cf. in this connection the discussion of Bishop J. Kibara’s suggestion (1978) to integrate such a dedicated missionary communion into the structures of confessional world alliances in Funkschmidt, op. cit., p.275 f.
11 Learning to honour the sharing of gifts, thus sharing one another with all the joys and worries of life, is an essential learning process within missionary existence of churches;
cf. H. W. Huppenbauer , Mission heißt, das Evangelium teilen (Mission means sharing the Gospel), ZMiss 4/1996, pp.214- 216; cf. K. Funkschmidt, op. cit., pp.7, 56, 59, 60f.
12 In this process the church is no more – and no less – than offspring and steward of mission. This is reflected in the UEM constitution in § 2(1) by the statement that this community relies on its being “(founded) on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament” and on this basis shall “serve the purpose of joint action in mission.”
Great ideals! Flexible strategies? Adequate resources?
(Present-day concerns)
The UEM partners make great demands on themselves: they want to take seriously both the world-wide dimension of the Christian church including her mutual responsibilities as well as the fact that in the end Christian mission can always only take place regionally or locally.
However, these great demands might quickly put too great a strain on the personal and economical resources which are nowadays rather being reduced than expanded.13 Up to now, it ‘turned out all right’ because the churches which are multilaterally connected in the association also gave indirect and exemplary vitality to the UEM process by taking care of their bilateral relations.
Nonetheless, during the first decade in which the new structure was put into practice many questions came up, some of which have not been thoroughly discussed, let alone resolved. Yet they have already allowed small steps in the process of organizational reform.14 The crucial questions shall be dealt with in the following sections:
• Have the essential goals of church communion in mission been consistently pursued, adequately discussed and jointly modified?
• Have the concepts, strategies, and the new overall structure proved successful? Has it been possible to preserve acceptance and active cooperation in all churches and institutions involved? Which modifications have already been made?
• What are the future challenges within the entire ecumenical network and how are they to be met?
A growing church and a fairer society!
(Clarification of goals)
Referring to the insights of recent research in mission theology, we should first clarify the goals of Christian mission. Therefore, within the overall mission theological situation named above, it is necessary first of all to distinguish between the eschatological horizon of the missio Dei as a whole, which is part of the gift granted by God within His act of salvation through Jesus Christ, and the objectives defined for the missio ecclesiae within this horizon. Whoever does not make this distinction will always run the risk of confusing the basic
13 Especially by German members! The UEM-specific nature of ecumenical partnership in comparison to other ecumenical unions (CEVAA and CWM) that have existed for some 150 years (p. 175 – 179), is presented in a plausible manner by J. Wietzke, Suchbewegungen zu mehr Partnerschaft (On the search for more partnership), Jahrbuch Mission 1993, pp.172-181, but also critically assessed with regard to potential strains for the various planes of ecumenical work in the churches involved (pp.179 – 181).
14 So at the General Assembly in Borkum / Germany June 2008.
theological and eschatological conditions of church and mission with the diverse forms of missionary activities of the church.
The eschatological horizon of the missio Dei encompasses the kingdom of God proclaimed by Christ (Lk 4:18 f; Jn 20:21) and the present eternal salvation by the assurance of justification for the sinner (Jn 3:16), and it represents as a whole the condition enabling ecclesiastical mission, indeed the entire existence of the church. This horizon together with its related effects enables the church and all her members to fulfil the task of missionary action in this world, the missio ecclesiae. Due to the eschatological horizon, this mission has two goals which should not be played off against each other as may be seen in the current debate about the competition between “missionary” and
“development” agencies in the EKD15:
Goal 1: Growth and renewal of the church, by winning people for the communion of believers and to a fellowship in accordance with the word that is preached, listening to God and to each other and helping one another accordingly, and Goal 2: The development of social life in the service of humankind, as the church – for example with diaconal services – sets the signs for more equitable politics and economics, in the sense of the reign of peace in the Kingdom of God introduced by Christ.
It has to be emphasized: neither of these two goals is beyond the eschatological horizon of missio Dei. That is the origin, justification, and motivation of the call to “repentance and new life”, as it says in paragraph 2 of the UEM Constitution, whether referring to the renewed life given to justified sinners in the communion of Christ or to the renewal of stewardship of God’s creation resulting from it. But something else applies: neither of these two goals is independent of the other, since in both cases the healing action of the Triune
15 However, it may be proved here how helpful it is to distinguish between the two goals, besides the a. m. distinction between an eschatological horizon of mission and its goals of activity. The two goals of mission, namely ‘church growth’ and ‘social development’, are necessarily distinct, yet closely connected, so that it is clear: both goals and tasks have to be understood, from a theological point of view, as constituent parts of church mission, even though they fulfil the mission of Christ in different ways and with different cooperation partners. A certain confusion regarding the determination as well as separation of goals for both expressions of mission had come up during the last decades, mainly because Western mission theology was still suffering from its mission history, which was perceived as compromising, and therefore hesitated to define mission as church activity. They preferred to withdraw behind the formula of the missio Dei, as it were behind an impenetrable eschatological reservation against all further determinations of mission, instead of preserving both differentiation and connection between missio Dei and missio ecclesiae and defining for the latter the most urgent necessities. More is to be said in this connection at a different place, since that would go beyond the scope of the UEM topic in this article.
God is transported with and through the church, either by preaching or – by her very existence – demonstrating freedom. When the Gospel is directed to what the church from her perspective regards as ‘outsiders’, offering them an impulse to transform their lives, this process is usually designated as ‘mission’
and often clothed in phrases such as ‘church is always church for others.’
Nonetheless it is very important to make sure that a further goal is not neglected, namely the invitation to join up in the body of Christ in the form of a specific and binding membership in a church.
It is certainly easier to stipulate the goals of Christian mission than to make them compatible with one’s own existence or even to achieve them methodically and then to check them off as ‘accomplished’.16 We would be happy if we could always radiate the great joy effected by the Gospel simply by using our specific characters as individuals and institutions – for the benefit of the church and society as a whole. But a mission of continuous ‘radiation’ for which people occasionally enthuse in glowing terms is just not at our disposition. We cannot construct ‘credible speech and life;’ we can only expose ourselves to God’s endearing love by our daily study of the letter and spirit of reconciliation – in spite of, indeed in view of our limitations and failures.17
There is no mission without a specific echo within the body of Christ in the form of a temporal church. What good to us – and to all those who are waiting for the best news of all – is a private and personal confession of faith, or one which can only be communicated at all within an elite international group, but not put into specific practice in a local church?18 This goal of inviting people to
16 People believed in this possibility at the very beginning of the world mission movement; cf. J. Mott in Edinburgh 1910, as well as later on when development was regarded optimistically. In the course of the past century, however, all the world’s churches had to learn that this mission could not be fulfilled in a historical period of time; cf. the title (transl.) ‘Mission accomplished?’ of the Jahrbuch Mission 2009 that will come out these days.
17 Within the framework of our limitations we should have confidence in this love granted to us in the power of the kingdom of God. We know that our human and organizational resources are limited, also as a missionary community. So we can only cope if we share our and other people’s talents, accepting them as God’s gifts for us all.
Therefore we may boldly define the specific cooperation in a temporal church as the place designated for the mission invitation.
18 Especially in the year 2009, when Calvin’s 500th birthday anniversary coincides with the 75th anniversary of the Barmen Theological Declaration, the UEM would be well advised to make conscious use of a Reformed tradition which is strongly represented in some of its partners’ history, according to which the church’s order is part of her nature and therefore has to be shaped in line with the Gospel. – On the subject of exaggeration of outward orientation (centrifugal trend) within mission cf. Funkschmidt, op. cit., p.187.
come to our churches should be more strongly emphasized in a missionary church communion such as the UEM.19
More room for action, without loss of participation (The process will continue)
Three factors mentioned above have to be coordinated continuously20 in a recurring cycle of checks: (a) common concepts of content, (b) common strategies and (c) common structures.
The latest example of this adaptation process can be named here. In the first 8-10 years the UEM management and advisory bodies concentrated their attention on the strengthening of parliamentary structures of participation. The objective was to create a system allowing all partners the most equitable representation through their delegates, respecting the various regions, ages, occupations and genders, and this aim has been steadily followed with growing success. On the other hand the questions concerning the concept and content of missionary and ecumenical work or modern and effective working strategies were pushed into the background.21
Soon, however, it became necessary to correct this tendency to emphasize structural reforms.22 Thus the responsible bodies had to focus on the review of
19 In more general comments, regard for local ‘missionary situations’ in the different churches among the members was named as desideratum or chance for the process from the very beginning of the UEM process; cf. U. Beyer, In einem Boot. Ökumene – Mission – Weltverantwortung (In one boat. Ecumenism – Mission – Responsibility for the World), Jahrbuch Mission 1993, p.184 and U. Beyer, Ökumenische Partnerschaft:
Das UiM-Experiment geht weiter (Ecumenical partnership: The UiM experiment continues), Jahrbuch Mission 1994, p.202, as well as Wietzke, op. cit., pp.178, 180. Yet the members’ mutual support as well as necessary mutual help in finding methods of adequate contextual evangelisation has hardly been specifically worked on anywhere. In the past years, it seemed as if the task of congregational development had nothing to do with the missionary concept of the UEM communion, namely its worldwide missionary orientation. This can be illustrated by the reaction of Indonesian UEM members to proposals by the Executive Secretary Evangelism, Rev. Währisch-Oblau in the year 2008: “We never knew that UEM is engaged in such kind of work …” (Personal communication, 20 February, 2009). First signs of a change in direction are recognizable in the strategy paper of the Region Germany within the UEM dated 2007.
20 This can also be gathered from the continuing further inquiries about the adequacy of structures on the occasion of consultations, as early as the development phase between 1978 and 1996.
21 That this might be a potential problem is already hinted at in Funkschmidt’s impressions (1998) of the first two years of UEM work, cf. p.269.
22 In times of careful resource sharing fundamental questions could not be overlooked, such as the following (at least since the GA in Manila in 2004): “What actually comprises the common understanding of mission which binds us together in a special